2S or 1N?

[Cascade]

He could hit gold or it could be a disaster.

Look at the hand ♠Q ♥Q ♦Q ♣K we haven't got gold.

[neilkaz]

2♠. You cannot suppress 3-card spade support (with this good a hand) because you think it is more descriptive. You know nothing about partner's hand, and you will cause all kinds of problems later if it becomes relevant to support spades.

 

Just support with support.

Complete agreement and you can accept a game try with 3NT if you wish.

[mike777]

Pd and I have diff. opinion about the following hand:

S: Q9X

H: Q8X

D: QT9X

C: KXX

 

PD opened 1S, right hand passed, playing 2/1 with the above hand, what do you bid? 2S or 1N?

 

I choose 1N due to the balanced hand with Queen and 8,9, but Pd thinks 2S much better, which I dont agree.

 

Your opinion?

 

THanks in advance.

 

Hongjun

2s easy...next hand.

 

I think the tough ones are 5-7 total points with 3 spades.

[CSGibson]

2♠. This is one of the most obvious bids I have ever seen on this forum.

[andy_h]

He could hit gold or it could be a disaster.

Look at the hand ♠Q ♥Q ♦Q ♣K we haven't got gold.

umm?

We have only heard 1♠ from partner. There are also the subset of hands where ours fit inbetween gold and disaster...

How do you know we haven't got the nuts? Even with a bare minimum as AJTxx AKJx Jxx x or KJxxx Kx KJ AT9x or AJTxx Jx AKxx Qx and game is easily in the picture (Note that moving on with these hands after a 1NT-->2S can turn out really bad. Maybe if you change a card or 2, surely hearing a 2S response will delight you way more than a mere 1NT-->2S which could still be based on a doubleton support). Knowing if we have 2 or 3 trumps is a huge factor in helping partner out. I would go as far as saying that 1NT is just 100% wrong.

[mcphee]

Amazed that more than ONE person in the entire world would bid 1N when not F. As a fan of constructive raises to me this is 2!S. What dear old pard does next is up to them.

[helene_t]

It is a common misconception that a "standard" 1NT response to 1 of a major shows a balanced hand, it doesn't.

I wasn't aware that it was common. Maybe among players who were taught bridge in the pre-Goren days?

[TMorris]

Playing Acol with 4 card majors. I think it's close between 1NT & 2S, generally with a completely flat hand I'd bid 1NT. The downside is if partner has a flat 15 to an ok 16 and passes but even then game is not that brilliant and I will have plenty of company & might beat the 2S bidders by playing in NT. Mind you I play mostly pairs. At teams I would be more tempted by 2D so as to not miss the flat 15-16 hand opposite.

[Walddk]

These answers are pretty shocking. 1NT is simply wrong.

To me it's more shocking to see a statement like "1NT is simply wrong". The world is not black and white, it's grey. I would raise to 2♠, but that doesn't mean that 1NT is "simply wrong."

 

I respect your view, Josh, but you should also respect others'. Wayne (cascade) is a NZ internationalist and a bridge teacher who can accept 2♠ as well as 1NT. There is nothing shocking about choosing 1NT as far as he is concerned, and I am in the same camp.

 

Roland

[ulven]

Constructive raises are the worst treatment ever. I'd rather play F------y than CR.

It's amazing how one can view the same situations so differently ;-)

 

I love CR and I think 2S is a really no-brainer on this hand. Really obvious actually and I consider 1NT, while perhaps not shocking, a mistake (unless playing 4-c M when the verdict would be reversed). This is NOT a bidding problem.

 

The biggest flaw with 1NT is that partner will often enough have an 'in-between' hand, rebidding say 2m. Now our hand is too weak to do anything but bid 2S and partner will no be able to move on many hands where game makes, since it can be a non-fitting 2-card preference.

 

Why would you not bid 2S? While it's very likely that we have a wasted honor, it's a fact that when partner has a sidesuit we'll have at least 2 very fitting cards. If we have say Qxx KQxx Qxx xxx this is potentially worse, if partner is short in hearts.

[helene_t]

I think this hand is clearly within the range of 2♠, whether it is constructive or SAYC-like. I don't see how this can be a problem. Is anyone suggesting the hand is too weak for a constructive raise or too strong for a SAYC-raise?

[pclayton]

These answers are pretty shocking. 1NT is simply wrong.

To me it's more shocking to see a statement like "1NT is simply wrong". The world is not black and white, it's grey. I would raise to 2♠, but that doesn't mean that 1NT is "simply wrong."

LOL Roland.

 

You must realize that everything on the forums is black and white, and that all bidding theory that existed prior to eighteen months ago is patently wrong.

 

The real world? Let's not go there B)

[han]

There are only so many words that you can use to express that something seems really wrong to you. Since the poster asked for opinions it would be a disservice not to give yours if you think it is really clear. This whole I'm-shocked-because-you-are-shocked thing seems overdone to me.

 

I don't think it is necessary to add to every single post we make a polite disclaimer about how this is only our opinion and bridge is a difficult game etc. etc. If I think something is clearly wrong then I'm just going to say so and if it turns out that some multiple world champion later posts it is clearly right, maybe I have learned something.

[TylerE]

My problem with constructive raises is that you can have the auction:

 

1♥-1NT-2♦-2♥ on:

 

♠xxx

♥Qxx

♦Qxx

♣Qxxx

 

or

 

♠xxx

♥xx

♦Kxx

♣AQxxx

 

This to me is far worse than having a 4/5 point range on 1M-2M

[rogerclee]

My problem with constructive raises is that you can have the auction:

 

1♥-1NT-2♦-2♥ on:

 

♠xxx

♥Qxx

♦Qxx

♣Qxxx

 

or

 

♠xxx

♥xx

♦Kxx

♣AQxxx

 

This to me is far worse than having a 4/5 point range on 1M-2M

I would bid 1NT with the first hand playing forcing NT. Please don't yell at me B).

[han]

I don't play constructive raises but I would bid 1NT.. 2H anyway on Tyler's first example. Three queens in a 4333 hand doesn't strike me as an honest raise. It seems to me that bidding 1H-2H on

 

♠xxx

♥Qxx

♦Qxx

♣Qxxx

 

as well as

 

♠xxx

♥Kxx

♦xx

♣AQxxx

 

is too much of a range as partner is more likely to try for game after this sequence than after 1H-1NT-2D-2H.

[jdonn]

These answers are pretty shocking. 1NT is simply wrong.

To me it's more shocking to see a statement like "1NT is simply wrong". The world is not black and white, it's grey. I would raise to 2♠, but that doesn't mean that 1NT is "simply wrong."

 

I respect your view, Josh, but you should also respect others'. Wayne (cascade) is a NZ internationalist and a bridge teacher who can accept 2♠ as well as 1NT. There is nothing shocking about choosing 1NT as far as he is concerned, and I am in the same camp.

 

Roland

1NT is absolutely wrong in the system that was stated. How can that even be argued? It denies three spades unless you are a very weak response or a limit raise. Could a wrong bid work well? Sure, I would never deny that. But if you don't bid 2♠ on the given hand, you are misbidding.

 

I do not see where I failed to respect anyone's opinion merely by stating my own?

[lexlogan]

I would've raised to 2♠, but 1NT doesn't seem horrible. Consider these two hands:

 

#1 ♠AKxxx ♥AJxx ♦Kx ♣xx

 

opposite

 

♠Q9x ♥Q8x ♦Q109x ♣Kxx

 

#2 ♠AJxxx ♥AJxx ♦Kx ♣Ax

 

Presumably partner will make a game try with the first after 1S-2S, but will pass after 1S-1NT-2H-2S. With the second, partner might bull into 4S after the raise, but I'd be inclined to bid 2NT after either the raise or preference sequence. So. with me as a partner, the bidding stops at 2S with #1 and reaches 3NT or 4S with #2. Those results look reasonable. I didn't spend any time cooking these examples, they were the first that came to mind where, for #1, the raise encouraged a game try and for #2 it didn't matter.

[Cascade]

These answers are pretty shocking. 1NT is simply wrong.

To me it's more shocking to see a statement like "1NT is simply wrong". The world is not black and white, it's grey. I would raise to 2♠, but that doesn't mean that 1NT is "simply wrong."

 

I respect your view, Josh, but you should also respect others'. Wayne (cascade) is a NZ internationalist and a bridge teacher who can accept 2♠ as well as 1NT. There is nothing shocking about choosing 1NT as far as he is concerned, and I am in the same camp.

 

Roland

1NT is absolutely wrong in the system that was stated. How can that even be argued? It denies three spades unless you are a very weak response or a limit raise. Could a wrong bid work well? Sure, I would never deny that. But if you don't bid 2♠ on the given hand, you are misbidding.

 

I do not see where I failed to respect anyone's opinion merely by stating my own?

It is "wrong" to a walrus. The same as opening 1NT with 14 is wrong to a walrus in the stated system.

 

That doesn't mean that the bid is wrong or has no merit.

 

On many judgement issues noone knows what is right or wrong. We only have opinions. There may well be a right answer but noone knows what it is.

 

This particular hand has a lot of features which are much more suited to playing in NTs than in spades - even with a fit:

 

4-3-3-3 distribution

Soft cards - queens

good spots

 

All of these features to me indicate no trumps rather than suit contract. Of course my view may change as the auction develops and I get additional information from partner.

 

I accept that if I raise spades it maybe possible for us to get to 3NT later. But I cannot see why it is not possible to get back to spades and for partner to think that we have three (or at least might have three) after I bid 1NT. This isn't a matter of system it is a matter of style and judgement.

 

I have done some simulations with this hand and they indicate to me that opposite reasonably balanced hands 5-3-3-2 and 5-4-2-2s that 3NT is more likely to make than 4♠. Now this is where the judgement gets complicated as partner's likelihood of opening 1NT with either of those shapes needs to be taken into account - with some partners all or nearly all of those hands will be opened 1NT with others none or very few will be opened 1NT.

 

I am not completely convinced that 1NT is better than 2♠ but I think we should be flexible enough to allow NT bids on hands even when a major fit exists.

[jdonn]

This isn't a matter of system it is a matter of style and judgement.

That statement is 100% incorrect. The complete opposite is true. What is this, since you want to bid 1NT, you get to change the definitions of 1NT and of 2♠?

 

I am not completely convinced that 1NT is better than 2♠ but I think we should be flexible enough to allow NT bids on hands even when a major fit exists.

It's perfectly reasonable to want to play in notrump on a hand like this. If that is important to you, then you should design or play a system that allows for it instead of misbidding in the system that is being played. It would be like opening 1NT with 10 when playing 15-17 because you think opening 1NT with 10 is an effective strategy. If that is the case, don't botch the range you agreed to, just play a range with 10 in it from now on!

[rogerclee]

Here is the main reason why bidding 1N then 2S is harmful to your constructive bidding:

 

Partner will play you for a doubleton spade and will pass with hands that would have game tried over a 2S raise. Hands like 5431 15 counts and 55 14 counts that are strong hands when they find an 8 card spade fit but not that great otherwise. This is fine when you have a hand with 3 trumps that would reject any game try, but when you have a full 9 count that will accept game tries you are underbidding your hands potential for spades.

 

What are the supposed reasons for bidding 1NT?

 

Well, playing 1NT is going to be impossible, so even if that is better given our soft cards and flat shape, it is going to be impossible.

 

The only time we will ever get to play NT instead of spades is when partner is strong enough to drive to the three level (or higher). In this case, partner is going to bid over 1S p 2S anyways and we still have the optin of getting to 3N. In fact, we will be better placed to judge whether 3N or 4S is the right contract at that point because partner will already know we have 3 spades.

 

Even if you call that a wash on times we get to a good 3N whether we start with 1N or start with 2S, we have gained nothing by bidding 1N. Also, if partner has a hand that will pass 1S p 2S we are a wash because he will pass 1S p 1N p 2x p 2S.

 

So the relevant hands are only when partner would bid over 1S p 2S but pass 1S p 1N p 2x p 2S. I think we will come out as a big loser by bidding 1N since we are going to be missing games more often as we have misdescribed/underbid our hand (see the beginning of this post).

 

For 1N to be right you have to think that you get to significantly more good 3Ns instead of 4S by starting with 1N, enough to compensate for the times you miss good 4S games by bidding 1N. There is no way this is the case, and it's not close.

 

It is a myth that we should bid 1N to show our balanced hand and slow values, it shows neither (as han said). And as jdonn said, 1N then 2S cannot contain a hand with 9 points and 3 spades, and that misdescription WILL hurt you as shown earlier in this post.

 

Frankly, I am amazed that I had to write so many words to try to show what is so blatantly obvious.

 

Roland, you are right that most things in bridge are not black and white. However, some are. Opening 1N with a 4333 16 when playing 15-17 NT is one of them. Raising 1S to 2S with a 3(334) 9 count is another one that is equally obvious.

[Codo]

If you play constructive raises, where is your borderline?

If you play 9-11, nobody will discuss that this hand is at most a borderline 2 Spade bid and maybe less.

So, lets say 1 Spade 2 Spade shows 8-10, nothing really spectular.

Now you have 9 HCPs, but nearly the worst points and shape ever.

 

So you use your judgement and say that this hand is not worth a 2 Spade bid, because it is much worse then f.e. Qxx,xx,xxx,KQxxx.

 

To call this 100% wrong and/or ridiculous is 100 % wrong and ridiculous.

[mike777]

If you play constructive raises, where is your borderline?

If you play 9-11, nobody will discuss that this hand is at most a borderline 2 Spade bid and maybe less.

So, lets say 1 Spade 2 Spade shows 8-10, nothing really spectular.

Now you have 9 HCPs, but nearly the worst points and shape ever.

 

So you use your judgement and say that this hand is not worth a 2 Spade bid, because it is much worse then f.e. Qxx,xx,xxx,KQxxx.

 

To call this 100% wrong and/or ridiculous is 100 % wrong and ridiculous.

I thought i said long long ago:

4-6 or 5-7 with 3 spades/trumps may be problem.

 

In bridge you choose which problems....to live with.

[Cascade]

This isn't a matter of system it is a matter of style and judgement.

That statement is 100% incorrect. The complete opposite is true. What is this, since you want to bid 1NT, you get to change the definitions of 1NT and of 2♠?

 

I am not completely convinced that 1NT is better than 2♠ but I think we should be flexible enough to allow NT bids on hands even when a major fit exists.

It's perfectly reasonable to want to play in notrump on a hand like this. If that is important to you, then you should design or play a system that allows for it instead of misbidding in the system that is being played. It would be like opening 1NT with 10 when playing 15-17 because you think opening 1NT with 10 is an effective strategy. If that is the case, don't botch the range you agreed to, just play a range with 10 in it from now on!

The only independent authority on 2/1 that I have at my finger tips says this:

 

On single raises

 

"They show a fit of three or more cards and the values of a good five to a bad nine in high cards." Hardy pg 17

 

It does not say anywhere that it is compulsory to make this raise with every hand in this range.

 

Hardy goes on to say that some 2/1 players play constructive raises where the range would be different.

 

When I agree to play a system I never agree to throw my judgement out the window. If I don't think a hand is suited for the "book" bid for some reason or another I am always free to make some other bid that I think is more suited.

 

These forums are full of hands where there is a "book" bid - in this case 5-9 hcp with three spades - but which many offer opinions that some other bid is better.

 

4-3-3-3 with 9 hcp is nothing like your exaggerated example of a five-point variation from your 15-17 1NT.

 

What is your authority that every 3-card support hand must raise 1♠. I am not used to playing that sort of straight-jacket system.

[helene_t]

This particular hand has a lot of features which are much more suited to playing in NTs than in spades

So you are planing for an auction like

1♠-1NT

2m-2♠

2NT-3NT

 

You could also get to 3NT via

1♠-2♠

(something)-3NT

 

Opener will be more likely to accept your proposal of 3NT in the first auction because you have shown only two spades.

 

There is only one way of showing 8 support points and 3-card support. If you want to show 3-card support, then the difference between 2♠ and 1NT is one of strength. It's not like 1NT shows a more notrumpish hand than does 2♠. Also, you can't play in 2NT with this hand (assuming you agree that the hand is too weak to invite with 2NT, and too strong to pass opener's 2NT invite).

 

There can be three reasons for bidding 1NT.

1) The hand is too weak for 2♠

2) The hand is too weak for 2♠

3) The hand is so notrumpish that you want to deny 3-card support.

 

Maybe this hand evaluates as 7 support points. Then of course 1NT is correct if 2♠ shows 8-10. Or maybe it is right to deny 3-card support with this hand. But otherwise I agree with Josh that 1NT is simply wrong.